Pope extends power to forgive abortion to all Roman Catholic priests

I do not know at what point it enters....but I do believe that it would be at the appropriate time for that particular mission to be accomplished,
whether toward the event or prior.....

that it knew it would be aborted or miscarried and willingly took on the role in order to achieve something (as in a developmental milestone).

Also, it is pertinent to my belief system that we have very limited memory (if any) of our own gestation, birth, and first few years.......even though
our brains are packed with more 'possible synaptic connections' at birth than we have ever again in our entire lives......

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Then again ----- have you ever watched a newborn sleeping?

What do they dream about? What possible things could a newborn baby have to dream about? Obviously, however, they DO DREAM.

Also - seemingly innate talents....how does a talent come about?

What about all of the different learning styles?

Dreams are a collection of the things we have seen, heard and smelled. It's theorized that babies dream in the womb, too. Sounds and some colors,
usually reds from when bright enough light can penetrate the mother's abdomen.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Then again ----- have you ever watched a newborn sleeping?

What do they dream about? What possible things could a newborn baby have to dream about? Obviously, however, they DO DREAM.

Also - seemingly innate talents....how does a talent come about?

What about all of the different learning styles?

A newborn could be making observations in the Astral Plane. I am presently experimenting with Astral Projection, and I do believe it is an external
phenomenon, though it is too soon for me to know for sure.

So you think that an unborn fetus may or may not have a soul (depending on the unknown point of soul incarnation/imputation), but if it dies as a
result of abortion, it is a result of some destined path. I do believe in destiny. However, with that particular view (which to be clear, I do not
share), doesn't that mean, abortion may or may not be murder?...kind of a 'Schrodinger's cat' situation?

If that is the case, then shouldn't abortion carry some kind of penalty?

Again, I am in no way advocating for any kind of penalty or regulation on early stage abortion, so long as the fetus cannot physically experience
birth.

A fetus/golem has no soul (Psalm 139:16). So abortion is not murder, and to call someone who has had an abortion, a murderer, is to make a false
accusation. That in itself is a serious judgement to bring down upon yourself, since as you judge others, it will come back to you.

I don't know what you are quoting, but it is NOT from N.I.V, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, King James
Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, International Standard Version, New American Standard 1977 , American King James Version, American Standard
Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, Webster's Bible Translation... Perhaps it came from the beliverfalsepriest untruthful bible. I refer to The New
Testament. And murder is murder. You know the difference, argue it with GOD when you see Him.

Then please quote the NT. Where does it say that the soul is imputed at birth? By the way, the New Testament stands on the foundation established by
the "Jewish Bible".

We won't find the word abortion mentioned in any biblical text, we can draw as a logical conclusion from Scripture, not to mention natural law,
reason, Church teaching, and patristic witness that abortion is intrinsically evil. Regarding abortion, consider these Scripture passages: Job 10:8,
Psalms 22:9-10, Psalms 139:13-15, Isaiah 44:2, and Luke 1:41.

Also:

Genesis 16:11: Behold, said he, thou art with child, and thou shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Ismael, because the Lord hath
heard thy affliction.
Genesis 25:21-22: And Isaac besought the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and he heard him, and made Rebecca to conceive. But the
children struggled in her womb...
Hosea 12:3: In the womb he supplanted his brother, and as a man he contended with God.
Romans 9:10-11: But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or
evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand) . . .
As you know the truth that these verses tell, is that life begins at conception. Rebekah conceived a child—not what would be or could be a child.
Note James 2:26: ". . . a body apart from the spirit is dead. . ." Since the soul is the principle which gives life to the body, then a child carried
in the womb of its mother has a soul because it is alive. To kill it is murder.

Then please quote the NT. Where does it say that the soul is imputed at birth? By the way, the New Testament stands on the foundation established by
the "Jewish Bible".

We won't find the word abortion mentioned in any biblical text, we can draw as a logical conclusion from Scripture, not to mention natural law,
reason, Church teaching, and patristic witness that abortion is intrinsically evil. Regarding abortion, consider these Scripture passages: Job 10:8,
Psalms 22:9-10, Psalms 139:13-15, Isaiah 44:2, and Luke 1:41.

Also:

Genesis 16:11: Behold, said he, thou art with child, and thou shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Ismael, because the Lord hath
heard thy affliction.
Genesis 25:21-22: And Isaac besought the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and he heard him, and made Rebecca to conceive. But the
children struggled in her womb...
Hosea 12:3: In the womb he supplanted his brother, and as a man he contended with God.
Romans 9:10-11: But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or
evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand) . . .
As you know the truth that these verses tell, is that life begins at conception. Rebekah conceived a child—not what would be or could be a child.
Note James 2:26: ". . . a body apart from the spirit is dead. . ." Since the soul is the principle which gives life to the body, then a child carried
in the womb of its mother has a soul because it is alive. To kill it is murder.

Ok. Gen 16:11, Gen 25:21-22, Hosea 12:3, and Romans 9:10-11 are all taken out of context as they emphasize God's divine plan of predestination.
"With child" (Gen 16:11) or 'harah' in Hebrew literally means to conceive. It does not in any way indicate that a fetus has a living soul.
Jacob and Esau did not consciously struggle in the womb, it was just the movement of the biomechanical flesh. To rectify that, look at
Exodus 21:22

Exodus 21:22 “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he
shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

If a woman miscarries without additional damage, there is no penalty for murder. If the woman dies, then there is a death penalty. God did not view a
fetus as having a living soul. Why???? Because the soul is the breath of life (Gen 2:7). Adam was not alive until God breathed life into his soulless
body. The woman in Exo 22:21 is the subject, and the fight, resulting in damages, is the predicate. Therefore injury inflicted upon the woman is the
issue, never the fetus.

That's ok. I mean Hebrew mythology considers a golem to be a soulless zombie, anyways. You can check the citations in the Wikipedia page yourself. It
is accurate for the most part. But the literal meaning in Psalm 139:16 is material/substance. It does not connote soul life in any way.

So you can take your triple face palms back, because clearly you settle for mistranslations and politicized misconceptions. How sad.

By the way, in Psalm 22:9-10, the key word in both verses is mibbaten (מִבָּ֑טֶן). Just as in the case of Luke 1:15, the prefix min (מִ) is
a preposition that means, outside of. So David is talking about how God took him out from the womb. Why would that be important to mention?
Again, Gen 2:7, God always breathes the breath of life into soulless flesh. There is never a soul in an embryo at conception, nor in a fetus during
gestation. At least the Bible doesn't teach that.

Shall I continue?

I think I will. Isaiah 44:2, as you so zealously cited,is the exact same case as
Psalm 22:9-10. Yet again, it is emphasized that God created us (our souls) OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB
(mibbeten מִבֶּ֖טֶן). Obviously its not talking about our bodies, as dying flesh begins
its biological development WITHIN THE WOMB, but soul and spirit are not flesh, and therefore cannot be formed by gestation. Only God can create soul
and spirit.

edit on 25-11-2016 by BELIEVERpriest because: added more IMPORTANT points.

Predetermined outcome is the 'right' thing to do for all concerned according to the two souls' different agenda. Any "penalty"? By no means. The
fact that it occurs is enough to set the chain of events rolling that later result in growth.

Consequence. Not "penalty." There's a huge difference. We are not to judge. I believe that what happens has at some level unbeknownst to us while
living as fragile humans been a 'mission.'

So no. It would be "mission accomplished" for the purposes of the eternal refinement process of the soul.

Im simply playing devil's advocate here. In this case, the devil is "pro-life".

Penalty vs karmic consequence is an important debate. But where potential murder is involved, doesn't some system of law reserve the right to judge
and execute some kind of penalty, even if destiny is in play. After all, that penalty would be part of the predetermined destiny.

To clarify my stance, Christians like to separate into two groups on the issue of destiny. On one side, you have Predestination (pre-programmed
robots), on the other you have free will (total chaos).

I believe that Predestination and Free Will are two sides of the same coin. To try and split to coin would destroy its structural integrity.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.